stockingfull wrote:That's because "nappy-headed ho" isn't a compliment, Jeff. Neither was Lott's overt suggestion that a segregationist President after WWII (Strom Thurmond) would have avoided "all these problems" for the country.

OTOH, Reid saying Obama had the looks and language skills to be a successful fusion candidate for President, even though done awkwardly and with outmoded language, was still a compliment to Obama.

There's a difference between racism, which is thinking about people negatively based on the assumption that they will be like others who look like they look, and observing that somebody in particular will be less likely to fit such racial profiling in a political contest, which is what Reid did.

Wow. You are an unbelievable apologist. Saying someone doesn't sound like a negro unless he wants too isn't really a term of endearment.

If I said you seem to tell the truth most of the time...for a lawyer....I don't think you'd be real happy with me.

coalkirk wrote:How about when Biden said he was "clean" and Clinton said he should be getting our coffee? Can you rationalize those too? I'll bet you can.

C'mon Terry, even you can rationalize those two.

Biden and Reid both made compliments, however awkwardly, and both have unassailable records on race -- which, after all, is what really matters.

Clinton and Lott, OTOH, did not mean well. (Although it's possible that Clinton's comment was meant to convey inexperience rather than slavery, it's a slap any way you view it. Lott's comment about Strom I've never heard interpreted as anything other than a direct reference to segregation.)

Unassailable records on race... maybe. Don't know about Reid so much. I doubt that race has played a big role in his national office holding, at least when it comes to the black/white divide (obviously he's had some exposure on the Hispanic angle). Biden, though, may have voted "properly" on racial issues, but his "clean and articulate" comment is only one in at least two negatively racial comments I recall from him (the other being the quote about Hispanic or Indian accents at drive through restaurants). I suspect there are more in his past, given how freely he lets fly with unintended speech.

So maybe they were "unassailable" on race issues... at least until they made their comments. Just like Lott (no claims of racist motivations attributed to him prior to his Strom b-day party comment). Just like George Allen (of macacca fame).

Biden may have been paying Obama a sort of compliment, but he was simultaneously casting racial aspersions on Jackson, Sharpton, Keyes, and every other prior black presidential candidate in modern history.

Similarly Reid may have been complimenting Obama in a fashion, but only if you are willing to ignore the underlying racially tainted negative cast he paints on other current and former elected black politicians in doing so. As if there was such a thing as a "negro dialect". I'd love to have him explain what exactly he was referring to and to point out when President Obama "slipped" into it on purpose. And the whole dark black/light black bit... I have to image quite a few black people (and white and every other color for that matter) in this country took offense at the whole racially smeared thrust of this supposed compliment Reid paid upon our President. The use of the term "negro" is in itself racially tinged to the point that had anyone not on the race grievance monger's protectees list uttered it, it alone would have been reason enough them to tear apart that persons character and flush their political career.

Finally, the attempt to cast this as some kind of unspoken truth that is a good jumping off point for the much fabled "national discussion" on race issues is particularly crass. If there was any real desire on the part of the race grievance industry to have that discussion in an open and frank way, they'd be willing to acknowledge either that Reid made racist comments and should have to acknowledge and apologize for them as such (not for the unintended effect they may have caused in others), or, they would be willing to recognize and honestly confront the double standard that exists and has stifled this national discussion for years now. Instead they do neither. They side step the double standard, even when it is on such plain display in this case, and they give Reid the standard "he isn't a racist, he didn't mean it that way, it's just bad phrasing" pass that all protectees get.

pvolcko wrote:. As if there was such a thing as a "negro dialect". I'd love to have him explain what exactly he was referring to and to point out when President Obama "slipped" into it on purpose.

Ever heard of "Ebonics"?Wasn't the California school department going to offer it as a "language" at one point?

Of course I've heard of it. However, I'm not at all sure that is what Reid was referring to. As I said, I'd like to see Reid explain precisely what "dialect" he was referring to and explain how it is "negro" in nature. You know, in the spirit of open and frank dialog on the subject of race in America.

The statement taken as a whole was a racially tinged backhanded commentary on Obama. The compliment only materializes if one accepts that a black person must overcome his blackness (skin tone and "negro dialect", by Reid's reckoning) to be elected to the presidency, and then grants Obama points for being sufficiently "non-black". As far as compliments to a black man go, that is pretty screwed up.

And beyond what it says of Reid or his take on Obama, it speaks horribly of the modern American electorate, quite unfairly I think. It presupposes that the primary thing that has stood in the way of prior black candidates was how awfully damned scary black they were and the fact that America couldn't look past those characteristics and their latent racial fear to see their way to electing one of them. Keyes is well out of the mainstream (even downright wacky) in some of his views (I say this as a one time supporter). Sharpton is a race grievance monger with minimal grasp of policy issues outside of welfare/low-income, urban socio-economic, and minority/civil rights policy arenas. Jackson is much the same, with an extra burden of overcoming his history with the Rainbow-Push Coalition and shaking down mega-corporations for payoffs to keep him and his organization off their case. Are there other noteworthy Black presidential candidates in the modern era that I'm forgetting? Perhaps a green party candidate I'm overlooking? The point is, it wasn't these candidate's "blackness" that prevented their election either at the primary or general stages, it was their under qualification, policy positions, and often troubling, personal and public histories that stood in their way.

Last edited by pvolcko on Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I would add that the "light-skinned" remark was particularly racist, but "negro dialect" remark, while also being racist, carried Reid's personal jealousy of Obama's political and social acumen and Reid's jealousy of a perceived advantage Obama has as a result of race.

Mike! You always seem to totally amaze me how you know not only what the true meaning of what I have said in the past(your opoinion anyway) but what most other people really mean to say. There are a lot of things that people educated in the field have been paid good money to do studies on & all along they could have just come to you. The clean remark could have been refering to his not having too bad of a past instead of being filthy. Its a known conclusion that light skinned AA are deemed more trustworthy, I don`t agree with everything said but I don`t try to determine what someone "really" meant. I do think that this whole thing is going to end up being good for the country as a better understanding of race & how its percieved from all sides might just come out rather than being a taboo subject. And I`m not just picking on you its just that you were the last one to post on the subject. As to the negro remark I know a lot of people that talk just a little differently depending on the people they are with. In my lifetime I have known negros, coloreds, people of color, blacks & African Americans & they were all the same people, as a race they have a hard time deciding what they want to be called.

samhill wrote:Mike! You always seem to totally amaze me how you know not only what the true meaning of what I have said in the past(your opoinion anyway) but what most other people really mean to say. There are a lot of things that people educated in the field have been paid good money to do studies on & all along they could have just come to you. The clean remark could have been refering to his not having too bad of a past instead of being filthy. Its a known conclusion that light skinned AA are deemed more trustworthy, I don`t agree with everything said but I don`t try to determine what someone "really" meant. I do think that this whole thing is going to end up being good for the country as a better understanding of race & how its percieved from all sides might just come out rather than being a taboo subject. And I`m not just picking on you its just that you were the last one to post on the subject. As to the negro remark I know a lot of people that talk just a little differently depending on the people they are with. In my lifetime I have known negros, coloreds, people of color, blacks & African Americans & they were all the same people, as a race they have a hard time deciding what they want to be called.

Sam, I had no comment on Biden's "clean" remark in this thread.

As for the "known conclusion that light-skinned African Americans are deemed more trustworthy", that is certainly a bigoted and unacceptable remark from anyone. It's like saying fat people are lazy or ugly people are cranky. It's pointless and ignorant.

That is probably the best thing to say about Reid's remarks: He was pointless and ignorant. But I doubt he is that mindless. At this juncture, with the book not yet released and the comments not yet in context, I feel an analysis of his verbatim remark is fair game in this informal conversation.

While Reid may have been complimenting Obama and encouraging him to run for president, he might also have been duping him to get him out of the Senate. Either way, he knows now his comments were wrong:

I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans for my improper comments," Reid said in a statement released after the excerpts were first reported on the Web site of The Atlantic.

"I was a proud and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama during the campaign and have worked as hard as I can to advance President Obama's legislative agenda."

--from a Yahoo AP story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100109/ap_on_el_se/us_obama_reidThis link is broken, either the page no longer exists or there is some other issue like a typo.

It's not a risk to say that Reid felt Obama's chameleon-like ability was politically advantageous albeit manipulative and condescending to his target audience. Hillary did the same thing in rural areas. Her country twang became more pronounced.

The point of this thread is to say that Republicans aren't given the same latitude in their remarks as the Democrats. The press quickly brands their faux pas as ignorant, racist, insensitive, etc. It's a double standard and certainly unfair. Race is an obsession of both the press and the Democrats but they fail to police themselves as vigorously as they would Republicans. The horror of Reid's comment is that "it wasn't meant for publication". That means it's OK to have the internalized bigotry so long as you don't say it publicly ?!?

As for the comment, "as a race they have a hard time deciding what they want to be called"... why don't we stop playing this race-baiting game? Let's stop keeping score on race. Let's just call citizens "Americans".

Last edited by mikeandgerry on Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:26 pm, edited 4 times in total.

pvolcko wrote:. As if there was such a thing as a "negro dialect". I'd love to have him explain what exactly he was referring to and to point out when President Obama "slipped" into it on purpose.

....

Reid, however, was not broaching the topic for such lofty purpose. His use of the word "negro" was particularly crass, the broader content was racially tinged and would have landed anyone else not on the protectee list in very hot water indeed.

I'm not saying what Reid said was that horrible or that he is undeserving of the benefit of the doubt here. I'm mostly offended by giving Reid a pass where so many others just as deserving of the pass have not and would not have gotten it. No doubt Reid would have been on the bandwagon to drum that person out of public life or at least attack the person's character to a crippling degree, right along with Jackson, Sharpton, and perhaps even Obama himself (as he has in the past). I'm offended by the attempt to turn this into some kind of high minded jumping off point for a dialog of racism in the USA, not because those pushing that spin are genuinely interested in that discussion, but because it is a means of taking attention off of Reid as quickly as possible and a way to preempt discussion of the double standard at play (a double standard, along with hair trigger grievance mongering, that prevents the honest discussion supposedly wanted from being able to happen).

Reid has apologized for the language, as Biden did for his "clean" remark. Neither "got a pass" -- that both remarks have received so much attention proves it. The notable differences in the reactions are because of the vast disparities in the intent of the speakers and their public records.

On both counts, these two deserved to get different treatment than those whose speech is hostile (like Lott's) or whose records as public servants shows reluctance to accord civil rights to minorities.

So, if all you boys on your high horses think there's a double standard, point to examples of Republicans who made positive remarks and/or had pro-active records on race and still have been skewered over such racial references, and we can revisit all this.

Until then, you fail, as usual.

Last edited by stockingfull on Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sorry about pinning the clean remark to you, I sometimes get comments mixed up. As for the light skinned remark I made that came from a black person that I was listening to on a segment he is a professor at Harvard I believe & was talking about different studies that have been done & how he felt B.O. is doing the wrong thing & should be trying to bring things out into the open. Just the opinion of a Eurasian Caucasion.

samhill wrote:Sorry about pinning the clean remark to you, I sometimes get comments mixed up. As for the light skinned remark I made that came from a black person that I was listening to on a segment he is a professor at Harvard I believe & was talking about different studies that have been done & how he felt B.O. is doing the wrong thing & should be trying to bring things out into the open. Just the opinion of a Eurasian Caucasion.

No apologies necessary. I understood the source of your quote. I think the problem of race is simple. We need to ignore race. However, the problem of culture is not simple and often race is the erroneous link to culture and vice versa. I applaud Obama's ability to bridge race relations with his "light skin" if that is what you and the professor mean. But I feel that is a potentially problematic approach that hangs too much emphasis on racial features and improper assumptions.